"I think its worth the wait," U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said in a hearing brought by two women who want joint custody of their three children. "I don't know what the Supreme Court is going to do."

The decision disappointed April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Hazel Park, Mich., who were involved in child-custody case that prompted the hearing questioning the gay-marriage ban that Michigan voters approved as a constitutional amendment in 2004.

"We were hopeful that he would make a decision today, but we weren't sure," DeBoer said. "We are confident that he will rule for us and we'll just have to wait until June to find out if that's what he's going to do."

Rowse said she was surprised when Friedman said that the Supreme Court wouldn't consider his opinion in deciding one of the nation's most hotly debated social issues.

"I think his opinion would have carried some weight," Rowse said after the hearing, which was held at Wayne State University Law School here to accommodate a larger crowd and provide a learning opportunity for law students. "As a Reagan appointee, that would have been a big thing."

Friedman acknowledged that the lawyers for the women presented a "very compelling case" that they were denied equal protection but also said that the state attorney general's office argued the law well, relying on precedents that the Supreme Court could overturn or uphold.

He said he expects a Supreme Court ruling by late June.

"Hopefully the Supreme Court will give us some direction, and I think they will," Friedman said. "I'm going to stay a decision in this matter until those cases come down."

The ruling came after almost an hour of arguments from an assistant attorney general, Joseph Potchen, and Carole Stanyar, who represented the women.

Potchen began his argument by complimenting the women on the job they are doing raising their children but still asked the court to dismiss the case saying no constitutional right had been violated.

"There is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex," Potchen said. "It's our position that the people of Michigan should decide this issue, not the federal courts."

Large social-policy decisions such as gay marriage are far more accepted if they come from a will of the people rather than a court ruling, Potchen said. He maintained that the women should make their arguments to the state Legislature if they want to change the law.

"That is the appropriate forum for the change they are seeking," Potchen said.

But Staynar said marriage is a fundamental right and can't be denied, even with a vote of the people.

"Fundamental constitutional rights should not be subjected to popular election," she said. "This is the defining civil-rights issue of our time. This is the last remaining group in our society denied equal protection under the law."

Staynar said that adoption laws are supposed to work in the best interests of the children, but they are failing.

"It's hurting families. It's hurting children," she said. "There's no safety net for these kids. It's destabilizing the very families that the governor says he's trying to protect."

The case comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The Obama administration urged the court last week to overturn California's ban, which state voters approved in 2008, shortly after that state's supreme court ruled that gays and lesbians could marry. The administration argued that ban also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Now 37 states have laws or constitutional provisions defining marriage as between a man and a woman.